Matthews v. Matthews

193 Misc. 258, 84 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3546
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 16, 1948
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 Misc. 258 (Matthews v. Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matthews v. Matthews, 193 Misc. 258, 84 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3546 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1948).

Opinion

Daly, J.

In an action for a separation the defendant interposed an answer setting forth counterclaims for absolute divorce and a declaration that he is the true and lawful owner of certain real property. The plaintiff now moves for an order dismissing the counterclaim involving the real property, on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a counterclaim in a matrimonial action.

This may have been true prior to September 1, 1948, the effective date of chapter 282 of the Laws of 1948, which repealed section 1168 of the Civil Practice Act and thus eliminated the special restrictive statutory limitations in respect to counterclaims in matrimonial actions. (See Fourteenth Annual Report [259]*259of N. Y. Judicial Council, 1948, pp. 53, 55, 221-227.) The repeal of section 1168 removed these limitations and now allows, as in other actions, the adjudication of as many controversies between a husband and a wife as the court may think it wise to be tried together. Thus the court has jurisdiction to try a counterclaim of the character herein sought to be eliminated, but is vested with discretion to order a severance of the action or a separate trial, or to strike out the counterclaim without prejudice to the bringing of a separate action thereon. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 262.)

None of the foregoing relief is sought by the instant application. Indeed it appears that the court has already ordered the real estate counterclaim to be tried separately, and the divorce counterclaim has already resulted in a decision in favor of the defendant. Under all the circumstances, therefore, the motion is in all respects denied. Submit order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Linscott v. Linscott
51 N.W.2d 428 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1952)
Cecil v. Cecil
198 Misc. 653 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 Misc. 258, 84 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-matthews-nysupct-1948.